IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v24y2004i1p64-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative Medicine or “Alternative†Patients: A Qualitative Study of Patient-Oriented Decision-Making Processes with Respect to Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Author

Listed:
  • Opher Caspi
  • Mary Koithan
  • Michael W. Criddle

Abstract

Background. Theory and clinical practice suggest that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) decisionmaking processesmaydiffer from those used in conventional medicine. If so, understanding the differences could improve patient-provider communication around treatment options. Objectives. To examine patient-oriented decision-making processes relative to CAM use. Population. Adults with chronic rheumatological disorders who utilize allopathic medicine only, CAM only, or both. Method. An exploratory, cross-sectional naturalistic design with thematic and content analyses. Results. Three distinct decision paths were developed, differing substantially on the importance of provider trust, disease severity/prognosis, willingness to experiment, intuitive/spiritual factors, and outcomes evidence. Conclusions. These divergent decision paths indicate the possibility of “alternative patients,†not just “alternative therapies.†Since informed decisions, tailored to the patient, would likely lead to sustainable improvements in health care outcomes, the findings may facilitate providers’ capacity to effectively advise patients about treatment alternatives and CAM use.

Suggested Citation

  • Opher Caspi & Mary Koithan & Michael W. Criddle, 2004. "Alternative Medicine or “Alternative†Patients: A Qualitative Study of Patient-Oriented Decision-Making Processes with Respect to Complementary and Alternative Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(1), pages 64-79, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:1:p:64-79
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03261567
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X03261567
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X03261567?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sirois, Fuschia M. & Gick, Mary L., 2002. "An investigation of the health beliefs and motivations of complementary medicine clients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 1025-1037, September.
    2. Gwyn, Richard & Elwyn, Glyn, 1999. "When is a shared decision not (quite) a shared decision? Negotiating preferences in a general practice encounter," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 437-447, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patricia M Herman & Anita H Yuan & Matthew S Cefalu & Karen Chu & Qing Zeng & Nell Marshall & Karl A Lorenz & Stephanie L Taylor, 2019. "The use of complementary and integrative health approaches for chronic musculoskeletal pain in younger US Veterans: An economic evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Ruth A. Tanyi & Joan Stehle Werner, 2008. "Women's Experience of Spirituality Within End-Stage Renal Disease and Hemodialysis," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 17(1), pages 32-49, February.
    3. Hök, Johanna & Wachtler, Caroline & Falkenberg, Torkel & Tishelman, Carol, 2007. "Using narrative analysis to understand the combined use of complementary therapies and bio-medically oriented health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(8), pages 1642-1653, October.
    4. Li‐Hsiang Wang & Suzanne Goopy & Chun‐Chih Lin & Alan Barnard & Chin‐Yen Han & Hsueh‐Erh Liu, 2016. "The emergency patient's participation in medical decision‐making," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(17-18), pages 2550-2558, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shippee, Tetyana Pylypiv & Schafer, Markus H. & Ferraro, Kenneth F., 2012. "Beyond the barriers: Racial discrimination and use of complementary and alternative medicine among Black Americans," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(8), pages 1155-1162.
    2. Collins, Sarah & Drew, Paul & Watt, Ian & Entwistle, Vikki, 2005. "'Unilateral' and 'bilateral' practitioner approaches in decision-making about treatment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(12), pages 2611-2627, December.
    3. Collins, Dorothy L. & Street Jr., Richard L., 2009. "A dialogic model of conversations about risk: Coordinating perceptions and achieving quality decisions in cancer care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1506-1512, April.
    4. May, Carl & Rapley, Tim & Moreira, Tiago & Finch, Tracy & Heaven, Ben, 2006. "Technogovernance: Evidence, subjectivity, and the clinical encounter in primary care medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 1022-1030, February.
    5. Dhar Chowdhuri, Praheli & Meyur, Suman, 2018. "Exploration of Personality Factors and their Effects on People’s Decision Making of Complementary and Alternative Medicine," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 5(2(4)), pages 120-125.
    6. Diamond-Brown, Lauren, 2018. "“It can be challenging, it can be scary, it can be gratifying”: Obstetricians’ narratives of negotiating patient choice, clinical experience, and standards of care in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 48-54.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:1:p:64-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.